Thaksin based idea, a Mini-Asian-IMF, gets funding boost

[LeveragedBuyout]

No there are enough. If golds are rare, the price of things with respect to gold will fall. If golds are abundant, the price of thing with respect to gold will rise. We can always divide the weight of gold to infinitsimal small.


We did that already. And @LeveragedBuyout had shown us the graph that US was worst off after closing gold windows.

@somsak Can you please give me the link to that post? I don't remember making that assertion, but I would be happy to be proven wrong by such an esteemed source. What I do remember writing is the following:

[July 17, 2014]
The US used to peg the dollar to gold, but broke the gold standard during the Great Depression, and then re-established a weak relationship with gold under Bretton Woods. The gold standard is a straight jacket on monetary policy, and is naturally deflationary. Bitcoin is like gold in that it must be "mined" and its quantity is limited--and it is also deflationary. As attractive as it sounds, deflation is quite destructive due to the suppression of consumption and the increasing burden of debt. Here is Ben Bernanke's summary of the problem:

[T]he proximate cause of the world depression was a structurally flawed and poorly managed international gold standard... For a variety of reasons, including a desire of theFederal Reserve to curb the US stock market boom, monetary policy in several major countries turned contractionary in the late 1920s—a contraction that was transmitted worldwide by the gold standard. What was initially a mild deflationary process began to snowball when the banking and currency crises of 1931 instigated an international "scramble for gold". Sterilization of gold inflows by surplus countries [the USA and France], substitution of gold for foreign exchange reserves, and runs on commercial banks all led to increases in the gold backing of money, and consequently to sharp unintended declines in national money supplies. Monetary contractions in turn were strongly associated with falling prices, output and employment. Effective international cooperation could in principle have permitted a worldwide monetary expansion despite gold standard constraints, but disputes over World War I reparations and war debts, and the insularity and inexperience of the Federal Reserve, among other factors, prevented this outcome. As a result, individual countries were able to escape the deflationary vortex only by unilaterally abandoning the gold standard and re-establishing domestic monetary stability, a process that dragged on in a halting and uncoordinated manner until France and the other Gold Bloc countries finally left gold in 1936." (from "Great Depression" B. Bernanke)

In addition, gold isn't "real money," it's just another currency. In the same way everyone pegged their currencies to gold before the Great Depression, everyone pegged their currencies to the USD during the Bretton Woods regime (and the US pegged its currency to gold), but it was just as unsustainable. Only after Nixon took the USD off of the gold standard did today's free-floating system emerge.

Gold only appears to be a better solution because everyone believes in the value of gold; it has psychological value. It doesn't have real economic value, however. Its industrial uses are extremely limited. It cannot be consumed, it cannot be used as fuel. I don't see why one would buy gold over more valuable and useful commodities.

Source: Dollar Dominance Intact as U.S. Fines on Banks Raise Ire
​

and...

[July 25, 2014]
It's very complicated, and the Bretton Woods Wikipedia article does a thorough job of exploring the issue, but in short:

The dollar was pegged to gold, and all other currencies were pegged to the dollar, but gold and the dollar traded separately. That meant that whenever the price of gold spiked, the US would have to buy gold to support the convertibility of the dollar. After WWII, once the US started running trade deficits, it was no longer financially possible for the US to buy such massive quantities of gold (which would have caused the trade deficit to explode). As the saying goes, what cannot be sustained, will end. So the US eventually broke convertibility under Nixon, and introduced the modern day free-floating exchange rate regime.

What are other reasons that a gold standard is bad?
1) It is naturally deflationary, which inhibits consumption
2) It promotes a mercantilist system, which essentially destroys free trade and causes tariffs to be erected in order to protect a trade surplus
3) A country on the gold standard loses independent monetary sovereignty, and thus has no control over the money supply or interest rates

In other words, the gold standard just doesn't work. The proof of this is that no country has returned to the gold standard, because if it worked as well as believers in the gold standard posit, then it would be a competitive advantage for a country to use the gold standard. But since it's actually a disadvantage, no country uses the standard.

Source: China’s New Global Institutions
​

But @madokafc and @alaungphaya have already done a good job of explaining the issue, so I don't have much more to contribute. I will issue my usual challenge: I invite Thailand to peg the baht to gold in order to benefit from all of the advantages that you believe a gold standard provides. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time for that to go into force, however.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

No there are enough. If golds are rare, the price of things with respect to gold will fall. If golds are abundant, the price of thing with respect to gold will rise. We can always divide the weight of gold to infinitsimal small.


We did that already. And @LeveragedBuyout had shown us the graph that US was worst off after closing gold windows.

There's around 16,056 tonnes of gold in the world that might seems much, but if you decide to split it with the entire Human species there in lies the problem.If the US started to used Gold Standard. Which is insane because the US in debt of over 16Tril & if there's no debt the US will still suffer Trade Deficit because much of US dollars are held be foreign nations. That will cause the golds to leave the US & the only way to get the golds back is buying it again using the same debt based system all over again.


Gold standard are Archaic we uses Fiat now because its much faster to transfer money.

 

[Aepsilons]

@somsak Can you please give me the link to that post? I don't remember making that assertion, but I would be happy to be proven wrong by such an esteemed source. What I do remember writing is the following:

Thanks for the clarification , Sir.

 

[Indos]

At some point, there will be a consequence of printing money. USA knows that, but they dont have any option at present time.

With huge debt they have now, it will be a disaster if market lost its confidence on USD.

Yuan is a challenger of USD. With China now trading in huge scale with every one and being seen as more responsible in managing their currency, so there is a chance in the future that some thing big can happen in the financial market.

If USA economy is not the biggest anymore, there will be more people in the financial market who will question USD relevance...

 

[alaungphaya]

Bro. You are Expert!
i total agree with you.

- Do you see? You basically say Nixon broke BW because US want to use more than it has. The gold standard/ BW was correct! No one could use more than she/he has except that she/he can borrow. Printing money is cheating.

- Do you see? Currently all big players are basically want to be able to print. I argued against many Chinese PDF forumer here as well, that Yuan printable is not acceptable. It is Yuan convertible to gold that is acceptable.

I totally agree with you. Bro. Currently it is not the technical that prevent gold from return to BW system, but it was because of politics.

Thanks bro. But I don't think there is a perfect system. Everything will be cyclical. Too much intervention will block the markets from clearing which just makes the problems bigger. Too little and there are just incentives to cheat.I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the fiat system and expansionary fiscal policy (QE) but then it does lead to race to the bottom economics.

From a third world perspective, we just have to find our own strategies and we can't rely on the big hegemons to look out for our interests. But then shutting yourself off from the rest of the world doesn't work either - look what happened to my country.

We just have to do our best.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

At some point, there will be a consequence of printing money. USA knows that, but they dont have any option at present time.

With huge debt they have now, it will be a disaster if market lost its confidence on USD.

Yuan is a challenger of USD. With China now trading in huge scale with every one and being seen as more responsible in managing their currency, so there is a chance in the future that some thing big can happen in the financial market.

If USA economy is not the biggest anymore, there will be more people in the financial market who will question USD relevance...

Actually, the entire US debt is denominated in dollars, so technically, a crash in the USD doesn't affect our ability to repay debt. In fact, such a devaluation would boost our exports by making them cheaper in foreign currency terms. The main concern with a crash in the USD is inflation, since our import costs would skyrocket, but given the worldwide trend towards deflation, inflation would be somewhat welcome.

 

[somsak]

Actually, the entire US debt is denominated in dollars, so technically, a crash in the USD doesn't affect our ability to repay debt. In fact, such a devaluation would boost our exports by making them cheaper in foreign currency terms. The main concern with a crash in the USD is inflation, since our import costs would skyrocket, but given the worldwide trend towards deflation, inflation would be somewhat welcome.

Exactly true. and Exactly cheating. You can print to infinity to repay your debt. You can bailout your ailing banks, but we got to sold out ourailing banks. Why do you have ability to fix your mistake by exporting inflation and printing away ur problem and we cannot? That is cheating.

(US banks) got bailed out. Ours got sold out.Chanting me.

 

[Jlaw]

Perhaps @madokafc @NarThoD @powastick would want to discuss the 97 crisis and the IMF in this thread.

The Asian financial crisis was nothing more than the elites wanting to take control of these countries economy, ie their banks, large corporations, and forcing these countries to implement economic policies that favor IMF.

Do some search on this subject.

Why on earth is gold enough or not enough a problem at all?

You still use US dollar as currency. I say again I am not against the US dollar.
Instead, I would say that the world should only use US dollar, if US dollar is physical gold convertible.

Gold standard was there until 1970s, and it works fine. Is 1970s an ancient time? If 1970 work, how can you prove that it does not work now?

Do I think that the number of gold is enough? YES, I do.



What inequality is inseperable?
How can you believe everything you are told in school?
Is what the teacher said in school is absolute truth or matters in the universe?

Its not insane. The price of gold would sky rocket in dollar terms, therefore the real Kilogram of gold you need is not that much. But it is not actually the price of gold that skyrocket, it was the price of US dollar that sink into deep ocean.

No matter how many gold there is, there will be an equilibrium where the price of gold and the infinisimal divide of weight of gold can be use as price of thing.

You need to imagine the world quote everything as the weight.

Gold works fine but US is against it because they cannot print infinite money with gold backed currency. that's why they took it off. Compare inflation betwee 1900-1971 vs 1972-2013 and you can see the huge inflation on the latter vs the former.
Printing money add to inflation.

 

[TaiShang]

@somsak

An old but forward-looking article for your attention.

AN EAST ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS MADE IN THE US

According to recent reports in the New York Times, 'Washington's policies ... fostered vulnerabilities that were an underlying cause of the economic crisis that began in Thailand in July 1997, rippled through Asia and Russia and is now shaking Brazil and Latin America'. The policies included pushing hard for financial liberalisation and freer capital flows.

By Hardev Kaur

February 1999

Is the United States' obsession with market liberalisation the cause for the on-going currency and financial crisis? It would appear to be so, going by the statements of various US officials as reported in the New York Times in mid-February.

The articles - the work of 10 correspondents reporting from eight countries over five months - according to a columnist based in Tokyo revealed 'the ruthless way in which the US Administration has pursued its agenda of prising open financial markets in Asia and elsewhere'.

While there may have been weaknesses in developing countries, they did not deserve to be 'hammered' by the 'financial pendulum or wrecking ball' sparked off by US policies.

For more than 17 months, Asian countries were told that it was 'Asia's own fault'. They were lectured about the fact that it was 'cronyism, corruption and the lack of transparency' which had prompted the economic problems. But now, according to the New York Times, it would seem as if these factors '... were not necessary to touch off a crisis'.

It reports that 'Washington's policies ... fostered vulnerabilities that were an underlying cause of the economic crisis that began in Thailand in July 1997, rippled through Asia and Russia and is now shaking Brazil and Latin America'.

'Financial liberalisation was undertaken in countries that didn't have the infrastructure to support it,' Ricki R Helfer, an international bank regulator and former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, said. She went on to add 'that this was one of the principal causes of the Asian crisis'.

In the words of former US Trade Representative, Mickey Kantor, who is now the Commerce Secretary: 'It would be a legitimate criticism to say that we should have been more nuanced, more frightened that this could have happened.' But alas, that was not the case. The US pursued and continues to pursue liberalisation with a relentless vengeance.

Kantor is also quoted as saying that the risks of financial liberalisation in the absence of modern banking and financial systems are akin to 'building a skyscraper with no foundation'.

'It's easy to see in retrospect that we probably pushed too far, too fast,' Jeffrey E Garten, a former US Commerce Department official, is reported as having said. He added that 'in retrospect, we overshot and in retrospect, there was a certain degree of arrogance'.

The push for greater liberalisation was directed at Asia in particular, largely because it was seen as a potential gold mine for American banks and brokerages. 'Our financial services industry wanted to get into these markets,' Laura D'Andrea Tyson, the former chairwoman of President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and later the National Economic Council, is quoted as having said.

According to the reports: 'The idea was to press Asia into easing its barriers to American goods and financial services by helping Fidelity sell mutual funds, Citibank sell checking accounts and American International Group sell insurance.'

The stream of officials that passed through the region and who went around the world continued to push for banking and financial liberalisation despite explanations from countries, including Malaysia, that the developing world was not ready for liberalisation nor was it able to face an onslaught from the mighty US banks and institutions.

These explanations were ignored and countered by statements that the countries were pursuing 'protectionist' policies. Clinton's Cabinet, according to the reports, approved a 'big emerging markets' plan. The aim was to identify 10 'rising economic powers' and push 'relentlessly for business for US companies in these countries'.

Under Ron Brown, the late Commerce Secretary, a 'war room' was set up in the Department 'where computers tracked big contracts and everyone from the CIA to the ambassadors to the President himself was called upon to help land deals'.

Garten, who is now Dean of the Yale School of Management, says, 'I never went on a trip where my brief didn't include either advice or congratulations on liberalisation.'

The warning bell for a slower pace in liberalisation was reportedly sounded by some officials. But it fell on deaf ears. Tyson said that she disagreed to some extent with the push (for liberalisation) and was concerned about 'a tendency to do this as a blanket approach, regardless of the size of a country or the development of a country'.

Another former Treasury official who had issued a caution about the push was then in the White House as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Joseph Stiglitz. He had said that there was a need for the slower pacing of financial liberalisation abroad, 'but nobody listened'.

The New York Times concluded that according to some economists, some countries which are now in trouble and have weak foundations, reached this desperate stage 'partly because Washington helped supply the blueprints'. These blueprints pushed too hard for financial liberalisation and freer capital flows.

Now that much of the wealth in developing countries has been destroyed and millions have been put out of jobs, their basic human rights denied by the chaos that has been created and with some countries calling in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help, perhaps the US Administration has achieved its goal of 'liberalisation' at a much more rapid pace than would otherwise have been possible. The IMF's conditions, in return for funds, stipulate greater foreign ownership in many financial institutions. Many of the new foreign 'owners' just happened to be from the US.

While Kantor may now defend the US policies and argue '... that the US was insufficiently aware of the kind of chaos that financial liberalisation could provide', it is no consolation for the millions that are now suffering.

It is also no consolation to the millions that are dying due to lack of medicine or food and for those who are unable to go to school and have to resort to begging for their daily bread. It is no consolation to the decades of hard work that has been undone and the wealth that has been destroyed in a matter of days, if not hours, in the name of liberalisation and globalisation. - Third World Network Features

About the writer: Hardev Kaur is Editor-at-Large of the Malaysian New Straits Times group. The above article first appeared in the Business Times (22 February 1999).

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Exactly true. and Exactly cheating. You can print to infinity to repay your debt. You can bailout your ailing banks, but we got to sold out ourailing banks. Why do you have ability to fix your mistake by exporting inflation and printing away ur problem and we cannot? That is cheating.

(US banks) got bailed out. Ours got sold out.Chanting me.

Cheating? I think you're misunderstanding something fundamental in how the capital markets work. Japan's yen is not the reserve currency, but it is a reserve currency, and the same factors that make it a reserve currency also insulate Japan from the type of shocks experienced by Thailand in 1997. Japan has a far higher debt/GDP ratio than the US, and yet, it hasn't experienced anything close to a Greek-like crisis. Why not? Because virtually all of Japan's debt is denominated in yen, and approximately 90% of that debt is held by domestic investors. Just like the US, the fluctuations of the yen do not affect Japan's ability to repay its debt.

What are the factors that make a currency attractive to other nations to hold as a reserve?
1) Freely traded and liquid
2) Backed by a government with a high credit rating
3) Issuing country has a low, stable inflation rate / long term purchasing power is preserved
4) Attractive economic fundamentals for the issuing country
5) Stable political framework
6) Size of issuing country's economy

Currencies that meet these criteria are also known as "hard" currencies. They enjoy a virtuous cycle: they do not fluctuate in value, thus preserving purchasing power. That makes them attractive to outside investors, which increase demand for the currency. This, in turn, provides flexibility for the issuing country to either allow the currency to appreciate, in order to lower inflation (and thus make the currency more desirable), or print currency and accumulate forex reserves (which, again, makes the issuing country appear to be more financially secure, and thus makes the currency more desirable). In the last few decades, the USD, JPY, DM (EUR), CHF, GBP, and to a lesser degree, CAD and AUD have been regarded as hard currencies. Note that none of these countries have even come close to a sovereign debt crisis.

Printing currency to meet demand is no more "cheating" than producing more cars to meet high demand. It is unfortunate that so many reverse the order of importance, and view the USD's reserve status as the reason for America's strength. It's the opposite: America's strength is the reason for USD's strength. If Thailand (or other countries that were affected by the 1997 crisis) carries out economic reform and strengthen their economies, their currencies will also achieve "hard" status.

To answer your specific points:

You can print to infinity to repay your debt

1) The US can print money because foreigners view US Treasuries as a safe haven, and absorb the USD supply. Thus, the USD doesn't depreciate as much as other currencies would in a similar circumstance

Why do you have ability to fix your mistake by exporting inflation and printing away ur problem and we cannot

2) We only export inflation to currencies which are pegged to our own. If they were not pegged, they would strengthen on a relative basis against our currency whenever we increase the money supply, and that strengthening would drive down inflation. The United States is not to blame if other countries peg their currency to the USD; that is their choice, not ours.

You can bailout your ailing banks, but we got to sold out ourailing banks

3) Our banks were bailed out by taxpayers, not the Fed. The Fed supplied liquidity, not the equity needed to restore capital adequacy ratios, and those banks which were unable to raise the necessary capital (or were deemed too unimportant to benefit from taxpayer largesse) were allowed to fail. Here's a list: List of bank failures in the United States (2008–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why didn't Thailand take the opportunity to purchase these failing banks? You seem irritated that US investors purchased failing institutions in Thailand, so shouldn't you have taken the opportunity to do the same after our financial crisis? I think we both know the answer to these rhetorical questions.

I enjoy discussing these issues with you, @somsak , but don't you think countries should take responsibility for their own economic policies? The first step in rectifying an issue is recognizing its existence, and that's not possible as long as countries blame external forces for their problems.

 

[powastick]

Why didn't Thailand take the opportunity to purchase these failing banks? You seem irritated that US investors purchased failing institutions in Thailand, so shouldn't you have taken the opportunity to do the same after our financial crisis? I think we both know the answer to these rhetorical questions.

IMF conditions for lending plus Thailand went broke after failed to defend Thai Bath against currency speculators. Malaysia was not the first to get attacked thus had time to prepare.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

IMF conditions for lending plus Thailand went broke after failed to defend Thai Bath against currency speculators. Malaysia was not the first to get attacked thus had time to prepare.

Rhetorically: why did Thailand need an IMF bailout after its financial crisis, but the US did not after its own financial crisis?

 

[powastick]

You can't print money if your currency is falling, US did not have this problem. Reserve currency advantage.

 

[Aepsilons]

Rhetorically: why did Thailand need an IMF bailout after its financial crisis, but the US did not after its own financial crisis?

Sir, the GDP of Thailand (nominal), is barely equivalent to half of the State of Florida's GDP. One state out of 50 that make up the United States.

The entire GDP (nominal) of Thailand is equivalent to Japan's Kanagawa Prefecture's GDP.

 

[somsak]

Cheating? I think you're misunderstanding something fundamental in how the capital markets work. Japan's yen is not the reserve currency, but it is a reserve currency, and the same factors that make it a reserve currency also insulate Japan from the type of shocks experienced by Thailand in 1997. Japan has a far higher debt/GDP ratio than the US, and yet, it hasn't experienced anything close to a Greek-like crisis. Why not? Because virtually all of Japan's debt is denominated in yen, and approximately 90% of that debt is held by domestic investors. Just like the US, the fluctuations of the yen do not affect Japan's ability to repay its debt.

What are the factors that make a currency attractive to other nations to hold as a reserve?
1) Freely traded and liquid
2) Backed by a government with a high credit rating
3) Issuing country has a low, stable inflation rate / long term purchasing power is preserved
4) Attractive economic fundamentals for the issuing country
5) Stable political framework
6) Size of issuing country's economy

Currencies that meet these criteria are also known as "hard" currencies. They enjoy a virtuous cycle: they do not fluctuate in value, thus preserving purchasing power. That makes them attractive to outside investors, which increase demand for the currency. This, in turn, provides flexibility for the issuing country to either allow the currency to appreciate, in order to lower inflation (and thus make the currency more desirable), or print currency and accumulate forex reserves (which, again, makes the issuing country appear to be more financially secure, and thus makes the currency more desirable). In the last few decades, the USD, JPY, DM (EUR), CHF, GBP, and to a lesser degree, CAD and AUD have been regarded as hard currencies. Note that none of these countries have even come close to a sovereign debt crisis.

Printing currency to meet demand is no more "cheating" than producing more cars to meet high demand. It is unfortunate that so many reverse the order of importance, and view the USD's reserve status as the reason for America's strength. It's the opposite: America's strength is the reason for USD's strength. If Thailand (or other countries that were affected by the 1997 crisis) carries out economic reform and strengthen their economies, their currencies will also achieve "hard" status.

To answer your specific points:



1) The US can print money because foreigners view US Treasuries as a safe haven, and absorb the USD supply. Thus, the USD doesn't depreciate as much as other currencies would in a similar circumstance



2) We only export inflation to currencies which are pegged to our own. If they were not pegged, they would strengthen on a relative basis against our currency whenever we increase the money supply, and that strengthening would drive down inflation. The United States is not to blame if other countries peg their currency to the USD; that is their choice, not ours.



3) Our banks were bailed out by taxpayers, not the Fed. The Fed supplied liquidity, not the equity needed to restore capital adequacy ratios, and those banks which were unable to raise the necessary capital (or were deemed too unimportant to benefit from taxpayer largesse) were allowed to fail. Here's a list: List of bank failures in the United States (2008–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why didn't Thailand take the opportunity to purchase these failing banks? You seem irritated that US investors purchased failing institutions in Thailand, so shouldn't you have taken the opportunity to do the same after our financial crisis? I think we both know the answer to these rhetorical questions.

I enjoy discussing these issues with you, @somsak , but don't you think countries should take responsibility for their own economic policies? The first step in rectifying an issue is recognizing its existence, and that's not possible as long as countries blame external forces for their problems.

- You ask about what I dislike about all the thing that happened. Here it is.


For example, I am a debtor to Thai Bank A, and Thai Bank B. Thai Bank A is terribly indebtedness. Thai Bank B is 30% bad loan. Government close all Banks that has bad loan over 20%. This laws kill a lot of banks who could manage to survive (Like Bank B). Now my factory is still do good sale, but because the current phase, I cannot repay the debt right away. Government call me "Bad asset" and get my factory ownership confisticated to the govenment ownership and sale them to Lehman Brothers in a very cheap price (say 5% of asset value), Lehman Brother, one of the currency attackers, then sold back my factory to me at the discount price (say 50% of asset value). So now its good to me. But actually if government is to sell it directly to me at this no-discount price, I will have to buy back my own factory. You can see Lehman Brother get 45% of asset values without doing anything except paperworks. The government then become indebtedness and declare to Thai people that we will be IMF's vassal states for 2 generations. Thaksin proved it wrong by return all money through IMF. Gold and Bhuddistsm came to help. A monk wanted to help country. he asked commoners to donate golds to help country out of IMF. These golds had help us pay and liberate us from IMF. All of these happening, part of them are directed by IMF, part of them are directed by investment banks. They play in a concerted way like a wolf teamwork. When one knows that IMF, World Banks, Wall street, and these hoards of investment banks are interwolven, one can see how unfair adventage it is to play this game while being able to print US dollar.


- Bail out by US tax payer: Money once you mixed up, you cannot say it has no help from the other. Fed always buy US government bonds. When government get the money, they can use to do "other works" and let the tax money bail out banks. Once US government accept FED money for their bonds, they are no different than US federal government printing money itself.


- Pegged with US dollar. Because Thailand was so trust the US dollar. By saying we should not pegged with US dollar, you are advertising us not to trust US dollar that much, and be more independent about financial policy. By having Basket of Currencies, we are drifting away from US dollar in some percentage. From what I can see, your forefather had built the trust on US dollar by Briton Wood system, and your generation is destroying it. When US came to Thailand during Vietnam war, the stories I heard from previous generation was great. We quote things in Thai Baht, and US was so RICH that they pay the same amount with US dollar (because communication problem). Everybody is happy with US dollar, be it brothel girls, to Meat sellers. US dollar was GOOOD..... But then suddenly, your generation is advertising us not to trust US dollar. How can one implement a Trust better than peg his currency with USD?